A promise by the defendant in consideration of the plaintiff accepting certain bills of exchange, to indemnify him from liability to make payments in respect of such bills is not within s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds. The defendant orally promised the plaintiff that, if he, the plaintiff, would accept certain bills for a firm in which the defendant’s son was a partner, he, the defendant, would provide the plaintiff with funds to meet the bills.
Held: (affirming the judgment of Mathew J), that this was a promise of indemnity and not of guarantee, and therefore not required by s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds to be in writing.
Davey LJ said: ‘In my opinion, there is a plain distinction between a promise to pay the creditor if the principal debtor makes default in payment, and a promise to keep a person who has entered, or is about to enter, into a contract of liability indemnified against that liability, independently of the question whether a third person makes default or not.’
Davey LJ
[1894] 2 QB 885, [1894] UKLawRpKQB 127
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Harburg India Rubber Comb Co v Martin CA 1902
The defendant had been a member of a syndicate which owed money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the syndicate and tried (unsuccessfully) to execute a writ of fi fa. The defendant then gave an oral promise that, if the . .
Cited – Pitts and others v Jones CA 6-Dec-2007
The defendant shareholder provisionally agreed for the sale of his shares without regard to a right of pre-emption in favour of the claimants. He then made an oral promise to indemnify the claimants against any losses should the purchaser fail to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.262987
